PRS/NRL22 rifle
- Thread starter rdnktrkr
- Start date
OP
OP
rdnktrkr
Member
I was going to ask what height rings was on your gun, it was very comfortable.
I ordered the 40moa rail, should be here next week. I will search for 1.25 or med rings next, maybe I can find somewhere that has rings and mags and I can combine shipping
Vortex 34MM 1.10" height rings. I have some on another scope, they work well.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020789393?pid=432595
XLR 34 MM 1.26 height rings. I have a set on my 34MM 56MM objective Crimson Trace, they work well.
https://xlrindustries.com/products/scope-rings?variant=26406608901
Crimson Trace 34MM 56 MM objective XLR 34 MM 1.126" rings
The scope is still in the rings, sitting in the safe. No zero stop. Great for playing at the range.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020789393?pid=432595
XLR 34 MM 1.26 height rings. I have a set on my 34MM 56MM objective Crimson Trace, they work well.
https://xlrindustries.com/products/scope-rings?variant=26406608901
Crimson Trace 34MM 56 MM objective XLR 34 MM 1.126" rings
The scope is still in the rings, sitting in the safe. No zero stop. Great for playing at the range.
Last edited:
OP
OP
rdnktrkr
Member
Looked this morning and found my Wheeler scope mounting kit has 1" and 30mm alignment rods and nothing for 34mm
. Found some 1.2" Wheeler rings, I've used them before, are they OK? Looked again at tracking for my scope, my zip is 30134
"Package delivered by local post office. GA, 30349
US"
. Found some 1.2" Wheeler rings, I've used them before, are they OK? Looked again at tracking for my scope, my zip is 30134"Package delivered by local post office. GA, 30349
US"
Mounting the Tract scope. I don't trust most of those scope leveler type setups.
Level the rifle with a good (and I mean good) level.
Mount the rings.
Get the scope mounted up ready the line up.
Use a plumb bob or weight on a rope to line up the vertical on the reticle.
No, the scope isn't clamped in the vice, sure does look like it though, doesn't it.
Built this vice stand 40+ years ago when I worked at a body shop.
The screw was broken on the vice I got out of a trash pile, welder buddy fixed it.
Level the rifle with a good (and I mean good) level.
Mount the rings.
Get the scope mounted up ready the line up.
Use a plumb bob or weight on a rope to line up the vertical on the reticle.
No, the scope isn't clamped in the vice, sure does look like it though, doesn't it.
Built this vice stand 40+ years ago when I worked at a body shop.
The screw was broken on the vice I got out of a trash pile, welder buddy fixed it.
OP
OP
rdnktrkr
Member
I do that using a plumb bob hanging from my other garage door, used florescent cord to make it easier to see.
On my Howa1500 I lapped the base before leveling it then use the alignment rods before tightening the rings, then using lapping compound I can make sure they are aligned before installing the scope and leveling it, Am I doing this incorrectly? Is there anything else I should be doing?
On my Howa1500 I lapped the base before leveling it then use the alignment rods before tightening the rings, then using lapping compound I can make sure they are aligned before installing the scope and leveling it, Am I doing this incorrectly? Is there anything else I should be doing?
Scope seems almost 1/2" too high for me.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,986
Too high for what?
Sounds about right., assuming the rings need lapping. I did not lap the MDT rings on the rifle you shot.
That Stabila sure fits the bill! Worth every penny they cost!
Just curious? What distance do you hang your plumb for leveling? Like 10 feet away or farther? I’ve tried a couple other ways and still not satisfactory results so I’m going tried and true.
OP
OP
rdnktrkr
Member
Mine is an easy 80ft, maybe more, I'll shoot it with a laser later, I had to use a different cord, I had braided fishing line on it and it was smaller than the cross hairs on one of my scopes
That was about 40 yards. Not so close that you can't focus on it well is preferred.
Yep, I used a 1/4" cotton rope with a ball peen hammer head on it to keep it tight. Just what I had laying around handy.
It doesn't seem to line up with a person's eye when the rifle is mounted properly. I've installed too many scopes to do it that way, unless someone is "right-handed", but "left eyed".
Then you wouldn’t have liked how my scope was mounted on my Benchrest rifle I shot in actual competitions either. To each their own.
In these PRS/PRS-22/NRL-22 competitions a higher scope mount is handy where you are moving/shooting and have to keep track of multiple targets, sometimes at multiple yardages.
In these PRS/PRS-22/NRL-22 competitions a higher scope mount is handy where you are moving/shooting and have to keep track of multiple targets, sometimes at multiple yardages.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,986
The question was rhetorical.
Welcome to the future.
Stealing one of the photos @Walkalong posted a couple pages ago - sure appears that he’s not having any problem with his high mounted scope lining up to his eye…
Last edited:
Certainly not, especially the way he has the gun rested. I think of how my rifle may be used and whether it may need to be mounted quickly while moving around. In that situation, I may want a scope mounted low, so it comes up perfectly, without adjusting my head against the cheekpiece. I normally like my scopes mounted as low as reasonable for me. A couple of years ago, I needed to grab my rifle off a table-like elevated tree stand and shot a running deer left-handed. It was possible because the rifle comb was perfectly-situated for either-side access.
While scope height over the bore will effect trajectory to some degree, scope height is more important for the individual shooter and how his rifle/scope fits them. What works for one person might not work for another. You don't want to be uncomfortable nor fight to get lined up with the scope.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,986
With a 100yrd zero, we add the same inclination in MOA as we add in inches per scope height over bore. So 2” scope height over 1.5” scope height only adds 1/2moa inclination.
Most folks don’t realize, however, that raising a scope actually gives us LONGER range access. Using a 3” scope height instead of 2.1” (what is actually on my rifle), I would have 0.2mils, .7moa, less drop compensation at 1,000 yards.
Equally, we get a longer maximum point blank range by raising our scopes. Using 3” optic height instead of 1.5” on my 30-06, a 4” MPBR extends by 20yrds. This is pretty simple - raising the sights leaves more room for rise in the early trajectory, so instead of having only 1.5” of play under a +/-2” MPBR, we can make use of more “under” before we go “over” and long before we fall back to “under” again.
Too many folks are stuck on “lowest possible scope height.” Your body is what it is - you have a specific geometry which fits between where you place a buttpad vs. where your cheek falls on the comb vs. how tall is the distance between your cheekbone and your eye. The “lowest possible” idea really stems from the amalgamation of multiple older paradigms:
1) All rifles used to have iron sights, so they all had super low combs (lots of drop) to put the shooters eye right down on top of the receiver - where the sights were located. When we added a scope to those rifles with low dropped combs, now our “sights” got an inch or more taller, but the combs didn’t move. So we needed the scope as low as possible to help keep our “cheek weld” as kind of still a cheek weld, or at least a jaw weld, and not a floating face… what SHOULD have happened, instead, is those shooters should have changed their stock fit to function properly with their body and their optics. There’s really no reason a manufacturer should have ever left an iron sight compatible stock on any model which did not come with iron sights. But they didn’t change, and shooters got stuck with poorly designed stocks for optic integration, and believed “lower is better,” instead of realizing their comb should have came up when their sights came up…
2) Hunters like small, handy firearms. Tall firearms are bigger than short firearms, and apparently every millimeter is absolutely critical to many hunters. Guys talk about hating “big telescopes” on hunting rifles all of the time, Leupold even came out with their ridiculous “L series” with a cutout in the bottom of the objective bell and lens to let 50mm objectives be mounted as low as 40’s… 10mm extra height is less than a half inch… this was silly from its outset, but it’s popular… so hunters wanted scopes really down low to their rifles.
3) Shooting super small targets without accurate range measurements at short ranges, we do see tighter convergence of low sights to the bullet trajectory. This falls apart really quickly, and we really have to be comparing extreme differences for it to matter at all. Comparing 1.5” scope height to 2.5” scope height on my 30-06, the lower scope is within a 1” target at 28yrds, whereas the taller scope is within the target at 50yrds, only 22yrds difference on the front end, and within the target at 50yrds, but the taller scope hangs onto the 1” target for 20 yards extra at the back end… for the 0-200yrd bunny hunter, the taller scope would be the advantage…
So functionally, there really is no advantage to a lower scope.
There’s also a pretty extreme advantage to a higher comb and a correspondingly higher scope, bringing the shooter’s face more naturally upright - no more “Weatherby eyebrow”. Our neck is in a more comfortable position, and our forehead isn’t pressing towards the objective bell.
I drank the “low scope koolaid” for a long time and I also for a long time passed that advice on to others myself, but any objective comparison for higher vs. lower almost unilaterally favors higher scopes over lower.
Here’s a fun demonstration, for those interested:
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,986
And I never implied you did.
But I did offer additional detail to elucidate the topic for those still stuck on the “lowest as possible” paradigm.
A lot of us did, hunters to hunters mostly, but later when we started using rifles to shoot far (well, farther, 4, 5, 600 yards), we discovered that it didn't really matter. For me that was in my late twenties.
I determine scope height based on the rifle, scope, and stock I am using. I go for a good cheek weld without having to hunch/bend my neck too much. On my Savage MkII I used medium rings with the DIP 25 MOA rail. The Rigid Alloy chassis uses an AR buffer tube which is pretty low compared to the receiver. The cheek rest on the Luth-AR is close to being even with the top of the receiver. See the photo in post #121
A rifle set up for someone with a short face or short neck won't work so well for someone with a long face or long neck. And that is why I prefer adjustable cheek rests.
A rifle set up for someone with a short face or short neck won't work so well for someone with a long face or long neck. And that is why I prefer adjustable cheek rests.
OP
OP
rdnktrkr
Member
I measured mine and was surprised 37yrds from outdoor garage to house garage door. I use an old plumb bob with heavier bright cord. You can use any weight with a string and hang it from anything
OP
OP
rdnktrkr
Member
I am just now converting over, I've been under the belief of keeping the scope as close as possible to the barrel, on my Grendel AR I noticed I was more comfortable when it was a little higher (bigger bell required taller rings). I guess I'm just a slow learner, it took until my mid 60s to try higher rings
